Quill - December 2008 - (Page 17) ikipedia, a user-edited, free online encyclopedia, is a major resource for journalists, students, researchers, writers, casual readers – but because anyone can edit the content, the common mantra when perusing its content is, “Don’t trust what you read.” Is that really true, though? The flipside to anyone being able to edit is that anyone can also fix mistakes, that every article has millions of eyes to pick through inaccuracies. Quill gathered together a panel of “experts” to read through five random Wikipedia articles and gauge the accuracy. The conclusion? Mostly accurate, yes — but not as a primary resource. Read on to learn how the articles on a math term, Harry Potter, Boy Scouts of America, the Society of Professional Journalists and Nick Carter scored on accuracy, readability and usability. Ramsey’s Theorem Like much of the mathematical content on Wikipedia, the article on Ramsey’s Theorem is a mixed bag. Accuracy of content The article appears to be mathematically correct. I don’t mean that I can vouch for every supposed fact stated in the article. Instead, I mean that I did not detect any flaws in the mathematical reasoning in the article. I don’t rule out the possibility that the article incorrectly quotes some “facts” that it states but does not prove. Authorship The quality of writing is mixed, due to mixed authorship. Some sloppiness and poor style can be found. Setting aside the occasional poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs, the important questions about the writing are: What will the article convey to someone learning the subject for the first time? Will the reader be able to follow the mathematical arguments? Will the reader get a correct sense of the broad ideas underlying the subject? I suspect that the answer to the latter two questions is negative. I’ll support my suspicion with some examples: The second paragraph fails badly in its apparent goal of conveying the broad idea behind Ramsey’s theory. At least two mathematical symbols are used in the article without being defined. (These are symbols that the typical reader may not be familiar with.) Third, in the proof of the theorem, the uninitiated reader may not make the leap from what is actually proven (a “bound”) to what is asserted (the “existence” of something). W ematical facts. But I try to be careful: Although most of the math on Wikipedia is probably correct, I would never trust Wikipedia for something really important unless I could verify it independently. — Nathan Reading, Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University Harry Potter The Harry Potter books have become a pop culture staple. As of June 2008, more than 400 million copies have been sold worldwide. This means a lot of media coverage and a large Wikipedia article that has probably been picked over by 400 million fans. Accuracy of content The content is very thorough and mostly accurate, but there were some statements that could possibly be viewed as subjective. For instance, the article refers to Lord Voldemort, the antagonist of the novels, as “a fascist Dark wizard obsessed with racial purity.” The phrase “racial purity” is strange, since it’s “magical” purity that concerns Voldemort; he doesn’t like magical and nonmagical folks to mix. Plus, Usability calling him “fascist” is odd, and the capitalGood writing is a part of scholarly qual- ization of “Dark” is unusual, as well, since ity, but more importantly, scholarly quality “Dark” is not a proper noun in Rowling’s is about respect for the truth. A Wikipedia manuscripts. article, just like a newspaper article, needs proper citations as well as correct facts Authorship and/or disclosure of uncertainties regardThe writing on this article is nice, if a bit ing any asserted “facts.” superfluous, with words like “eponymous” In mathematical writing, correct facts and “subjugate.” Then again, the majority and/or disclosure fall under the heading of people reading this article would probof mathematical correctness. But the issue ably enjoy the literary twists. The article of proper citation is still important. In the does a great job of breaking up an intricate Ramsey’s Theorem article, I am not aware plot, though, and bringing it down to the of any problems with citations of math- most important details. ematical facts. But I am disturbed that the It outlines the first three books in the famous mathematician Paul Erdös is quot- section “Introduction to the wizarding ed, with no source indicated for the quote. world” and the last four books in “VoldeI have heard a similar quote from Erdös, mort returns.” Considering every book is phrased completely differently. Is there an over 300 pages, and most of them are over authoritative source for the quote? Would 600 pages, condensing this content down it be better to describe the quote as some- into a readable format is praise-worthy. thing Erdös is reported to have said? There is also a section for “Supplementary works,” for the charity books. Conclusion Despite its flaws, the Ramsey’s Theo- Usability rem article is a positive contribution to This is a very manageable guideline for the world’s store of knowledge. Although I the mammoth books. If you were using it to would not recommend the article to a stu- write a short article about something Hardent learning Ramsey theory for the first ry Potter — say, the next movie release — it time, someone who finds the article by would provide enough background that themselves will probably learn something. you could write about the movie without I use Wikipedia regularly to look up math- embarrassing yourself in front of the milDECEMBER 2008 Quill 17
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.